Flores wrote in her analysis that the evidence did reveal that Stapley may have been guilty of something. Stapley should have revealed on his financial disclosure forms, required for elected officials, that he'd received tens of thousands of dollars in donations to a campaign he ran for a board position with the National Association of Counties. Stapley can whine, but it won't erase the fact that his actions in collecting the NACo money off the books from people he might deal with in his capacity as supervisor and then spending the money on personal items were less than honorable.

But as Flores had noted two years ago, the actions of Arpaio and Thomas were reprehensible and tainted the Stapley case beyond repair.

Last month, the county decided that giving Stapley $3.5 million was better than the anticipated butt-whupping in court. The settlement followed a scathing opinion and ruling by Judge Wake, who rejected motions by Arpaio to end Stapley's lawsuit.

Supervisor Wilcox, arguably, has a stronger case against the county. Yet she's also asking for more money, proportionately. Slightly less than half of Stapley's award went into his pocket, but Wilcox's expenses, estimated to be less than $400,000, are about 40 percent of her settlement with Smith.

Campbell notes that if the county prevails before the Ninth Circuit and the $975,000 settlement award is overturned, Wilcox will keep pressing her claim. The county then will spend hundreds of thousands more in legal fees and discovery preparing for a trial before the same judge.

Logic predicts that the county would decide to settle the case before a trial, as it did with Stapley and New Times -- and don't forget retired judges Gary Donahoe, Barbara Mundell, Ana Baca, and Kenneth Fields, businessman Conley Wolfswinkel's family, county IT chief Stephen Wetzel, Deputy County Manager Sandi Wilson, and Stapley assistant, Susan Schuerman.

Campbell says, in retrospect, Wilcox's $975,000 settlement looks like a "bargain." Her settlement was made in April 2012, he points out, long before relevant depositions and documents that came out during the lawsuits by Donahoe and Stapley.

"I don't understand what the county is doing," Campbell says. "It really makes no sense."

Perhaps politics make the difference: Wilcox is a Democrat, and the other four supes and the county attorney are Republicans.

If the county loses the appeal, after the March 11 hearing in San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit court could award Wilcox all or part of her settlement award, plus legal fees to date.

But it looks like the most expensive option would be for the county to win the appeal.

People gotta learn keep giving government more of your tax dollars and they will find ways to spend it. The most efficient thing about government is it's inefficiency. Who else would spend dollar to save a nickel?

The Voters of Maricopa county DESERVE this financial ass-fucking and the associated public obloquy from civilized society for continually re-electing that lowlife scumbag racist piece of shit Joe Arpaio to public office.

I applaud her for standing up for herself, and going against these bullies.

She should get ten tiems this amount, Who authoriazed these thugs to use our taxpayer money to fight this , justice? It should be ordered that they pay their own legal fees, and that would stop the BS!!!

Republicans costing us 375k, a democrat costing us 1million, both are guilty of raping the taxpayer. Fuq reps and dems, really, when will voters wake the F up and say HELL NO to both slave master parties.....

Do you have any evidence that Wilcox is corupt? Bring it or shuit the fuck up Marco. Talk is cheap. She went through hell as a result of a crooked republican sheriff and republican county attorney. You can hate her all you want but you should at least supply some info as to her wrong doing.

@robert_graham ps you wanted joe, you got him..now face the consequences of his actions. He and Thomas clearly violated her civil rights..so bobbi, its time to put meaning to your words and support Mary on this, or finally admit the Constitution and the law are NOT the real reasons you support arpaio.

@robert_graham You're being silly, Robert. This wretch of a story you linked to by an anonymous, ball-less coward is the worst kind of hatchet job. Here's what the "author" had to say about Flores' participation:

"Gila County Attorney Daisy Flores thought Thomas’s prosecution of Wilcox had enough merit to initiate a review. Although she eventually dismissed the charges, no doubt due to political pressure, she did not initially express any problem taking over the prosecutions from Thomas, and spent 10 months going over 10,000 documents in the case. Flores concluded that Wilcox had indeed failed to properly report financial information."

(Emphasis in bold from original.)

Notice that the author doesn't mention that Flores said there was no evidence of a crime on the part of Wilcox.

The first sentence quoted here is ca-ca. Flores agreed to take the case from Thomas only after he was ordered by a judge to give it to an outside county attorney. That was after Thomas tried to give the case to extremely expensive lawyers from Washington D.C. The corruption was all Thomas'.

@abuseofpowerMary Rose Wilcox doesn't deserve even one penny. She's a buffoon and she should have been booted from office a long time ago. She is the abuse of power. The feds are watching her. Mark my words!

@yourproductsucks2 not disagreeing, but isnt this just throwing away more money? odds are she will get her money (whether we agree with that decision to pay or not), but how much more are we going to burn through before they do hand her a check? this is a serious question, not trying to pose a debate

@danzigsdaddy in the private sector the decision to spend this kind of cash to defend a lawsuit is taken very seriously. Is it worth x to not pay xx? When its not your "x" to begin with its much easier to spend the money.

@logicman@david_saint01@robert_graham her rights were violated, period THE END..but thanks to you and the rest of the arpaio apologists for proving that you dont support the Constitution, while claiming you do. Otherwise, this, the Stapley case, and the faux RICO case against the judges would have drawn the same ire.

@logicman@david_saint01@robert_graham lol first, i never did. Second, at least NT provides those things called "Facts", which snorin alliance never has. Its just the OPINIONS of biased zealots, making stuff up as they go just like Russell Pearce does.

@robert_graham it has nothing to do with her being hispanic. everybody in any form of government (your hero's included) seem to feel they are above the law. and this case isnt about her feeling she is above the law twit, thats what started this, someone saying she broke the law when she wasnt. think about it, every single person caught up in that and every other little Arpaio deal was accused of breaking the law but was never proven to be doing so. they all got settlements, that would mean someone (your hero) doesnt fully comprehend the laws they are claiming to enforce